Table Of ContentThe Impact of In-Service Technology Training
Programmes on Technology Teachers 23
Mishack Gumbo, Moses Makgato, and Heléne Müller T
h
e
J
o
u
r
Abstract (C2005) was a huge educational reform in the n
a
The aim of this paper is to assess the impact history of South Africa. C2005 was reviewed l o
the Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) twice and became consecutively known as the f Te
c
in-service technology training program has on Revised National Curriculum Statement hn
o
technology teachers’knowledge and understand- (RNCS), the National Curriculum Statement lo
g
ing of technology. The training of technology (NCS); currently it is the Curriculum and y S
t
teachers is an initiative toward teachers’profes- Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). It is u
d
sional development within the mathematics, sci- envisaged that CAPS will be implemented in ies
ence, and technology sphere of education 2012 (Department of Education [DoE], 2005,
(MSTE). ACE is a two-year training program 2010). The reviewed versions have not lost their
that technology teachers in the Gauteng and OBE flavor per se, as the present version is still
Mpumalanga Provinces (South Africa) attended undergirded by the curriculum principles rooted
during 2008 through 2009. The program atten- in the South African Constitution’s“Preamble,”
dees were senior phase teachers, of whom a few which motivated the transformative OBE cur-
taught in the Further Education and Training riculum approach (DoE, 2003, 2010).
band of education (certain high schools begin
with grade 8). The research problem that the The OBE approach to the curriculum creat-
study addressed is stated in terms of the follow- ed a gap between the requirements of the OBE
ing hypothesis: There is no statistically signifi- and training the majority of teachers previously
cant difference between the pre- and post- received (Ono & Ferreira, 2010). Because the
knowledge and understanding survey scores for pedagogic practice of the OBE differs from pre-
teachers attending the ACE professional devel- vious practice, intensive, continuous profession-
opment program in technology education. A sur- al teacher development is imperative to prepare
vey questionnaire to collect biographical and teachers for the implementation of the revised
technological input was administered to teachers curriculum. The urgency of the matter becomes
who attended on the days the questionnaire was even more apparent considering the training of
administered. The same questionnaire was underqualified and unqualified teachers is still
administered at the beginning of training in incomplete and a reality to be dealt with (Jansen
2008 and at completion of the program in 2009. & Christie, 1999; Taylor & Vinjevold, 1999).
The aim of the quantitative study was to evalu- Although the qualifications of many teachers in
ate whether the ACE-Technology training had a the country have improved, the majority of
statistically significant impact on technology teachers have not been sufficiently equipped to
teachers’knowledge and understanding of tech- meet the changing educational needs of modern
nology. In total, 304 completed questionnaire society (DoE, 2006). Two of the most important
responses were included in the study. The results factors in determining whether teachers are ade-
indicated that there were improvements in the quately equipped to teach technology success-
teachers’technological knowledge and under- fully are content knowledge (subject matter) and
standing. This indicates that teachers benefited pedagogic skills (Aluko, 2009). Most studies in
positively from the ACE-Technology training. teacher development have found that many
teachers seriously lack pedagogic skills regard-
Keywords: Advanced Certificate in ing supporting individual differences in students
Education, in-service training, technology teach- (Kent, 2004; Laine & Otto, 2000). Insufficient
ers, technology teaching capabilities, profession- pedagogical skills may be attributed to current
al development programs, MSTE education, teacher education and development practices for
nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon both pre-service and in-service teachers (Kent,
test. 2004).
Background Of The Study The previous literature references empha-
The introduction of outcomes-based educa- size that continuous professional development is
tion (OBE) in the form of Curriculum 2005 crucial for teachers who work in an environment
of school curriculum changes. Adequate time Diploma, the Senior Primary Diploma in
should be made available for teachers to study Teaching, the Junior Primary Teachers Diploma,
24
and plan if they are to effectively and success- or the Senior Teachers Diploma (Welch, 2009).
es fully implement the curriculum (Laine & Otto, According to a survey undertaken by the Human
di
u 2000). Literature indicates that most school dis- Science Research Council (HSRC), only about
t
S
tricts in America usually provided too little time 18% of currently practicing teachers are profes-
y
g
o for professional development (Kent, 2004). The sionally qualified.
ol
hn outcome of such a situation is that teachers may
c Technology Learning Area (TLA) and
Te not be in a position to pass sound judgment
Teacher Development
of regarding learners’needs.
al The introduction of technology education
n
ur The research described in this article is has triggered an urgent and fervent need for in-
o
J
e approached from the perspective of a teacher’s service technology teacher training as part of
h
T professional development. According to teachers’professional development. This need
Villegas-Reimers (2003, p. 11), professional was exacerbated by the fact that technology edu-
development is broadly defined as “the develop- cation was introduced as a relative newcomer at
ment of a person in his or her professional role.” the inception of C2005 (Gumbo, 2003;
More specifically, teacher development is Maluleka, Wilkinson, & Gumbo, 2006). There
explained as “the professional growth which a were no trained or qualified technology teachers
teacher achieves as a result of gaining increased at this stage. When technology education was
experience and examining his or her own teach- rolled out with C2005 in 1998, teachers, quali-
ing systematically” (Gatthornin Villegas- fied in other subject fields, were asked by the
Reimers, 2003, p. 11). According to Villegas- DoE to volunteer to teach technology. They thus
Reimers (2003), professional development started teaching technology with a very limited
includes formal experiences such as reading pedagogical content knowledge background.
professional publications, watching TV docu- Similar developments were reported internation-
mentaries related to an academic discipline, and ally.Reference can be made to China, where
attending cluster meeting workshops. It is broad- teachers “floor-crossed” from other disciplines –
er than career development, staff development, with different knowledge backgrounds – into
or in-service training, and it includes a long- technology education (Feng & Siu, 2009). Feng
termdevelopment process. and Siu (2009) view in-service teacher educa-
tion, based on the China experience, as a crucial
Teacher training is pivotal to the success of factor in technology curriculum development.
curriculum change (Brown, Sithole, & Hofmeyr,
2000). Thus, the challenge to the system is to As part of a formal two-year qualification
help teachers to become change agents and to address the technology teacher training back-
thereby enable them to lend impetus to transfor- log, the DoE decided on the ACE qualification
mation (Brown et al., 2000; DoE, 2006) through to fast-track teacher training, particularly as an
creative approaches (Castellano & Datnow, in-service training course. The ACE program
2000; Kent, 2004). Many studies have shown enables teachers to upgrade from a Matric + 3
that teacher competence in pedagogic and con- (matric plus three years’qualification) to an M
tent knowledge is crucial for student achieve- +4. The ACE furthermore provides the option
ment (Borko, Elliott, McIver, & Wolf, 2000; for practicing teachers to either qualify in a new
Darling-Hammond, 2000; Kent, 2004; Pikulski, subject learning area or to specialize in a sub-
2000; Rivers & Sanders, 1996). In an attempt to ject/learning area that they are currently teach-
develop teachers professionally, the DoE in ing (DoE, 2000). The admission requirements
South Africa proposed new professional qualifi- for entryinto the ACE program include profes-
cations for teachers, namelythe four-year sional qualification. This qualification may be
Bachelor of Education (BEd) degree, with a sen- either a three-year teachers’diploma, or a BEd
ior certificate, that is matric plus four years’ degree (Aluko, 2009). When the program it
qualification as prerequisite; and a Postgraduate completed,it is envisaged that teachers will be
Certificate in Education (PGCE) (Aluko, 2009). highly competent in terms of knowledge, skills,
However, in reality in South Africa about 40% and didactics relevant to the subject. This is in
of practicing teachers are either unqualified or keeping with the principles of the National
underqualified (DoE, 2009) and hold outdated Policy Framework for Teacher Education and
teachers’diplomas, such as the Primary Teachers Development in South Africa, which states that
“a teacher should be a specialist in a particular of respondents, and qualitative methods to
learning area, subject or phase” (DoE, 2006, p. strengthen research findings.
25
5).
Research Design
T
h
Since 2002, in-service training workshops The formal hypothesis of the research ques- e
J
o
sponsored by the DoE for Higher Education tion on the impact that the Technology- ACE u
r
n
Institutions have been held for teachers during training program has on technology teaching a
l
school holidays and on Saturdays. In this regard, knowledge of practicing teachers can be formu- of
T
Potgieter (2004) accounted for some 137 teach- lated as follows: There is no statistically signifi- ec
h
ers who participated in workshops that he facili- cant difference between the pre- and post- n
o
tated, and some 950 teachers who enrolled with knowledge and understanding survey scores of log
y
the University of South Africa in 2002 for the practicing teachers who completed the ACE pro- S
t
u
ACE program. However, despite these initiatives, fessional development program in technology d
ie
according to Ndahi and Ritz (2003), the supply education. The research environment in which s
of technology teachers is still minimal and the research was conducted that is reported on in
should continue to receive attention. The DoE this article is briefly discussed in this section.
(2006, p. 16) furthermore stated that “both con-
The first two authors were involved as facil-
ceptual and content knowledge and pedagogical
itators in an ACE-Technology training program
knowledge are necessary for effective teaching.”
offered during 2008 and 2009. The program was
The nature of technology is more of project acollaborative project between the Tswane
based and problem driven. This means that stu- University of Technology and the Vaal-Triangle
dents design and makeprojects to solveidenti- University of Technology, and it trained senior
fied problems with “structures,”that is, electri- phase technology teachers of the Gauteng
cal and mechanical systems. In line with this (Sebokeng, Johannesburg North, Soweto and
nature of technology, the ACE training program Tswane West Districts) and Mpumalanga
reported in this article covered the following Provinces (Bushbuckridge District). The authors
topics: (1) technological processes and skills, were keen to assess the impact of subject-specif-
which includes investigate, design, make, evalu- ic (technology education/TLA) training on tech-
ate, and communicate. It is about designing, nology teachers’knowledge and understanding
making, and evaluating technology prototypes or of the subject of technology education. Hence,
artifacts to solve technological problems while the researchers integrated their training with the
incorporating a range of other technological research project under discussion and undertook
processes; (2) technological concepts and con- aquantitative survey design study.
tent knowledge, which includes structures, mate-
Aquestionnaire was designed and adminis-
rial processing, electrical/electronic control sys-
tered to technology teachers at the beginning of
tems, and mechanical systems; (3) indigenous
the ACE-Technology training program in 2008
technology, which is about the impact and biases
to determine the status of teachers’technological
that technology has on society and the environ-
knowledge and understanding. The same ques-
ment. These topics were integrated in the practi-
tionnaire was administered to the same teachers
cals that teachers conducted within “structures,”
when they completed the program in 2009 to
electrical and mechanical systems.
determine the impact that the training had had
Limitations on the teachers’perceptions of their technologi-
The research under discussion was designed cal knowledge and understanding. The question-
as an exploratory study, and a quantitative naire included 14 questionnaire statements on
research approach was used to this effect. A teachers’perception of their knowledge and
mixed-model approach, in which quantitative understanding of technology education subject
results (e.g., interviews) complement quantita- matter and interpretation (see Tables 2 and 3).
tivedeductions, could haveenriched the find- The statements were scored according to a five-
ings. Time and funding was however a restrict- point Likert agreement rating scale. Questions
ing factor in this study; therefore, it was argued on biographical attributes included training
that once the impact of technology training had background, qualifications, and qualifying insti-
been verified, future studies should incorporate tutions, as well as present and past teaching
additional aspects, such as the length of the experience.
training presented,countrywide representation
Ethical research aspects were addressed by after ACE-Technology training would be more
acquiring permission to conduct the research or less the same. This no-effect assumption
26
from the DoE and participating parties. ACE would imply that the difference between pre-
es organizing officials and senior DoE staff who and post-training scores would be close to zero.
di
u visited the training sites were approached for Anonparametric Wilcoxon- signed rank test was
t
S
ethical clearance. Survey participation was vol- conducted on all difference ratings, combined
y
g
o untary, and the purpose of the study was over all the questionnaire statements, to test the
ol
hn explained to the participating teachers. hypothesis that the general mean difference rat-
c
Te ing score was zero. Separate tests were also
of The target population of the study was prac- calculated on the 14 sets of difference scores
nal ticing technology teachers and the population for each knowledge statement. These tests were
r
ou was sampled purposively since several logistical conducted separately to assess whether teachers
J
e problems initially compromised random sam- perceived to have significantly improved their
h
T pling: teachers interpreted the registration proce- knowledge and understanding on each aspect
dure incorrectly due to poor communication by of technology tutoring that the questionnaire
the DoE; and other teachers enrolled late probed.
because school managements granted permis-
sion at a late stage; in other cases teachers Once the issue of the impact of
attended classes infrequently; or teachers who ACE-Technology training had been validated,
had been selected to attend did not attend and the analysis strategy investigated the effect
some teachers switched between the ACE spe- that biographical attributes – such as previous
cialization fields of mathematics, science, and technology tutoring experience and previous
technology. As a result, 304 teachers who were technology training, could possibly have had on
conveniently available participated in the ques- the expected increase in technology knowledge
tionnaire survey. and understanding (over and above the effect of
ACE-Technology training on technology
Analysis Strategy
knowledge and understanding). Nonparametric
One-way frequency distributions on respon-
analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis one-way
dents’biographical attributes were calculated to
analysis of variance) was used to investigate this
provide a descriptive background of the sampled
aspect of the research. The analysis strategy was
population and to verify the representativeness
dulyfollowed and analysis results are presented
of the sample in terms of target population
in the next section.
attributes. These frequency distributions were
furthermore used to determine whether biogra- Analysis Results and Interpretation
phical attributes could be further investigated for Biographical attributes of the sample
their effect on teachers’technology knowledge Table 1 presents the frequency distributions
acquisition – over and above the effect that the of the biographical variables probed in the
ACE-Technology education training program questionnaire.
had on the acquisition and understanding of
These distributions describe the sample
technology knowledge.
as teachers of whom approximately the same
Composite frequency tables on the proportion was selected/or attended the ACE
knowledge and understanding perception rating technology education program voluntarily
statements (14 statements), which respondents (50.34% and 48.65%); and the same proportion
rated before and after the completing the had no/had previous formal training in technolo-
ACE- Technology education training were also gy teaching (58.75% and 41.25%). The figures
calculated to provide a general overview of show that previous training was most commonly
respondents’perceived knowledge and under- gained from week-long workshops (51%) and
standing prior to and after the ACE training that previously acquired technology education
(Table 2). The difference between pre- and post- qualifications mostly consisted of an attendance
ACE technology knowledge and understanding certificate (58.14%). Approximately half of the
perception scores were also calculated for each respondents had taught technology previously,
respondent and statement. The analysis strategy and 73% of teachers were currently teaching
argued that if training did not affect the percep- technology.
tion of teachers’technological knowledge and
understanding, perception ratings prior to and
Table 1
One-way frequency distributions of respondents’biographical attributes 27
How wereyouselected? (missing =8) Qualifyinginstitution (missing = 217 )
T
h
Cu e
fi % Cum fi Cum. % fi % m fi Cum. % Jo
u
DoE i nst. urban 92 31.08 92 31.08 Secondary Sch 13 14.94 13 14.94 rn
a
School sent me 57 19.26 149 50.34 Tech/College 17 19.54 30 34.48 lo
f
Ivolunte ered 144 48.65 293 98.99 University 31 35.63 61 70.11 Te
c
Other 3 1.01 296 100.00 In- job training 22 25.29 83 95.40 hn
o
Private Inst 4 4.60 87 100.00 lo
g
Training background in Technology education? y
Taught technology prior to ACE? (missing = 5) S
(missing = 1 tu
d
Yes 125 41.25 125 41.25 Yes 160 53.51 160 53.51 ies
No 178 58.75 303 100.00 No 139 46.49 299 100.00
Type of training (missing 171) Grade taught previously (missing 226)
Workshop 105 78.95 105 78.95 Grade 8 78 100.0 78 100.00
Tech Ed qual. 22 16.54 127 95.49
Other 6 4.51 133 100.00
Workshop duration (missing = 187) Currently teaching technology (missing = 4)
One day 32 27.35 32 27.35 Yes 219 73.00 219 73.00
Two days 14 11.97 46 39.32 No 81 27.00 300 100.00
Three days 11 9.40 57 48.72
One week/more 60 51.28 117 100.00
Type of qualification (missing = 218) Grade currently teaching (missing = 216)
Attendance cert. 50 58.14 50 58.14 Grade 8 86 97.73 86 97.73
Diploma 28 32.56 78 90.70 Grade 12 2 2.27 88 100.00
1st Degree 6 6.98 84 97.67
H/ M/ 2 2.33 86 100.00
Doctorate
The deduction could thus be made that the deduction can be made that respondents seemed
sample appropriatelyrepresented the target to lack the general academic knowledge and
population of the research, namely, practicing understanding to teach technology before they
technology teachers with limited formal teach- started the program.
ing qualification.
On the other hand, when the participants
Once the adequacy of the sample had been completed the program the total row frequency
verified, the authors’attention was turned first distribution indicates that respondents in general
toan exploratoryoverview of technology felt more relaxed about their academic knowl-
knowledge and understanding perception trends edge and understanding of technology once they
and next to a formal validation of these had undergone ACE- Technology training, since
observed improvement trends. Asummaryof the the majority of responses nowfell in the moder-
respective analysis results is presented in ateto the more than averageexperience percep-
Tables 2 and 3. tion categories (91%). This shift seems to indi-
cate that respondents felt more confident about
Perceptions regarding technology knowledge and their technology knowledge and insight once the
understanding
ACE-Technology training program had been
In Table 2, the total frequency distribution
completed.
row before onset of the ACE program indicates
that the majority of perception responses fell in
the no-experience to limited experiencecate-
gories (61%). If the perception rating scale of no
experience to extensiveexperience is interpreted
as “a substantial lack of knowledge” to “sub-
stantial knowledge or confidence,”then the
Table 2
Frequency distributions of 304 participants to the 14 knowledge and insight perception rating statements of the
28
technology survey questionnaire scored prior to and on completion of the ACE-Technology training program
s Frequency No Limited Moderate Above Extensive Totals
e
di experience experience experience average experience
u
t experience
S
gy Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
o
ol 1.Meaning of technology 64 3 108 10 87 143 38 134 6 6 303 296
n
h 2. Meaning of tech. Education 86 3 108 12 72 140 31 133 3 6 300 294
c
e 3.Learning outcomes, ass. stds 89 3 68 11 83 101 58 172 3 7 301 294
T
of 4. Grasp/apply design process 106 4 71 9 76 125 46 152 5 6 304 296
al 5.Identify problems/
n
r needs/wants 87 3 94 16 74 132 39 137 3 2 297 290
u
Jo 6.Structures/strengthening
e techniques 77 3 77 11 84 122 51 153 3 5 292 294
h
T
7. Priorities, selecting materials 75 3 100 16 78 119 46 152 2 3 301 293
8. Systems and control 90 5 99 26 72 144 27 112 0 4 288 291
9. Design, completing projects 96 4 88 22 84 148 28 116 3 4 299 294
10.Identify and apply resources 78 3 90 21 91 132 34 134 2 3 295 293
11.Tech. lesson planning 87 3 91 21 88 137 30 127 1 4 297 292
12.Tech. methods and
strategies 97 5 103 20 66 151 32 114 1 4 299 294
13.Tech. assessment 104 5 96 26 71 154 27 106 1 3 299 294
14.Implement NCS Tech
Grade 8 99 4 92 27 77 146 31 114 2 1 301 292
TOTAL 123551 1285248 11031894 518 1856 35 58 4176 4107
Percentage of pre-/post-totals 30% 1.4% 31%6% 26%46% 13% 45% .1% 1.6%
FrequencyMissing = 80 (pre); 149 (post)
Table 3
Wilcoxon signed-rank test results on the overall pre- post-difference dataset and on the fourteen subsets of
pre-post-differences for each of the questionnaire statements to test the hypotheses, of location: Mu =0
0
Signed-rank test to test the null hypothesis of no overall improvement in knowledge once ACE-technology
training is completed (H :Mu =0)
0 0
S-statistic Probability
Knowledge aspect N Signed-rank associated S- Mean Skew
test Statistic (std. dev.) -ness Kurtosis
Signed rank test to test the null hypothesis of no overall improvement in knowledge once ACE-technology
training is completed (H :Mu =0)
0 0
Overall knowledge improvement# 4047 2195144.00 <0.0001*** 1.19 (1.00) 0.05 -0.63
The signed rank sum test results on knowledge statements (14) assessed in the questionnaire
Meaning of technology 296 11420.00 <0.0001*** 1.08 (0.93) 0.14 -0.29
Meaning of technology education 290 12472.00 <0.0001*** 1.27 (0.98) -0.10 -0.48
Learning outcome, assessment 291 9401.00 < 0.0001*** 1.21 (1.12) 0.12 -0.55
standards
Grasp and apply design process 296 11301.50 < 0.0001*** 1.28 (1.12) -0.01 -0.86
Identify problems, needs and wants 287 11218.00 < 0.0001*** 1.20 (1.01) -0.01 -0.78
Structures, strengthening techniques 283 10027.50 <0.0001*** 1.14 (1.00) 0.05 -0.84
Priorities, selecting material 291 11038.50 <0.0001*** 1.17 (1.02) 0.11 -0.80
Systems and control 278 11542.50 < 0.0001*** 1.19 (0.90) 0.13 -0.54
Design, completion of projects 290 10953.00 < 0.0001*** 1.18 (0.99) 0.01 -0.62
Identify and applyresources 286 11065.50 < 0.0001*** 1.13 (0.94) 0.06 -0.65
Lesson planning, technology 287 11385.00 <0.0001*** 1.18 (0.99) 0.14 -0.68
Technology methods and strategies 290 11489.50 <0.0001*** 1.22 (1.00) -0.03 -0.60
Implementation tech assessment 291 12501.50 < 0.0001*** 1.22 (0.95) -0.05 -0.64
Grasp, implement Grd R9 NCS Tech 291 11863.50 < 0.0001*** 1.15 (0.97) -0.01 -0.59
#: The differences for the overall knowledge improvement variable were calculated by subtracting scores rated
on program completion from ratings scores rated prior to course commencement for each of the 14 subquestions
for each respondent. The total number of responses considered was therefore 14 x 304 = 4256.
For the individual rank tests onlydata of respondents that completed the same question on both questionnaires
could be included in the various analyses, therefore varying totals are reported.
Nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests • The type of technology qualification
These initial indications of technology previously obtained,
29
competency shifts were further explored and
• The institute at which the previous
statistically validated by means of nonparametric T
qualification was obtained, h
e
Wilxocon signed-rank tests. The tests were J
• The province where the respondent was o
conducted on the combined difference data set u
r
taught, and n
aswell as on the 14 individual subsets of a
l
o
pre- post-difference scores for each of the 14 • Previous experience teaching technology f
T
questionnaire statements for all respondents. (prior to the ACE-Technology program). ec
h
The null hypotheses evaluated in all instances The results of these analyses are no
lo
state that the ACE program did not statistically summarized in Table 4, and the factors g
y
significantly improve technology competencies investigated are listed in column 1 of Table 4. St
u
in any respect (14 competency aspects and a d
ie
general trend), as opposed to the alternative The analysis results identified the following s
hypotheses of a statistically significant effect biographical factors as statistically significant
of ACE-Technology intervention on technology additional role players (over and above ACE-
competency. Table 3 summarizes the results of Technology intervention) affecting perceived
the Wilxocon tests. general positive change in teachers’technology
knowledge and understanding, namely:
Highly significant Chi-square test statistics
were associated with all Wilcoxon signed- rank i.Previous exposure to technology
tests (column 4 Table 3). The tests therefore training:Teachers who had had previous
verify initial indications of positive shifts in exposure to technology training perceived
perceived technology competency. The general their level of increased technology knowl-
test in Table 3 verified that teachers perceived edge and understanding to be statistically
ACE-Technology programs to statistically significantlyless than teachers who had
significantly improve their technology teaching no previous exposure to technology train-
competencies; more specifically, teachers ing prior to the ACE-Technology program.
perceived that all (14) aspects of their t (The two mean differences of 0.95 and
echnology knowledge and understanding 1.36 proved to differ statistically signifi-
that were probed in the questionnaire were cantlyfrom each other).
statisticallysignificantlyenriched bythe
ACE-Technology intervention. ii.Type of previous technology training
exposure:If previous training exposure
Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance consisted of a technology education qual-
The results, derived from Tables 2 and 3, ification, respondents experienced signif-
thus answered the main concernof the study: icantly less change in their levels of
ACE-Technology intervention had a positive technology knowledge and understanding
impact on teachers’perceptions of their technol- when compared with technology training
ogy teaching competencies. To enrich these exposure at workshops or other modes of
findings, the researchers also investigated the training exposure. (Table 4 indicates the
effect that other factors might have played a role statistically significant difference
in teachers’perceived improved technology between the mean difference of 0.58 and
teaching capabilities. Separate nonparametric the mean differences of 1.06 and 1.53).
Kruskal-Wallis analyses of variance were con-
ducted on the overall set of differences between iii.Previously obtained technology
pre- and post-rating scores of respondents to qualification:Astatistically significant-
evaluate how respondents’perceptions of their ly greater change in knowledge percep-
improved technology training competency were tion was experienced by respondents
affected bythe following: who had attendance certificates in tech-
nology,diplomas, or a first degree in
• Previous or no previous exposure to
technology teaching than those with an
technology training,
Honors or second degree qualification
• The type of previous technology training
(mean differences of 0.95; 0.75 and
exposure,
0.75, as opposed to 0.29).
• The type of previous technology training,
iv.Institution from which previous previously taught technology perceived
qualification was obtained:The astatistically significant greater change
30
respondents who obtained their in their level of technology knowledge
es qualifications from a private institution and understanding than did those who
di
u experienced significantly less change in had taught technology prior to the
t
S
their level of technology knowledge and ACE-Technology program.
y
g
o understanding perception (mean differ-
hnol ence of 0.31) than did those who had Discussion of Findings
Tec attained their qualification at a secondary The study in this paper aimed to assess the
of school (0.97), at a college/technikon effect that the ACE-Technology training pro-
al grams had on technology teachers’professional
n (0.83), at a university (0.81), or “on the
r
u development regarding their knowledge and
o job” (1.10).
J
e understanding of technology. The findings
h
T v.Province where respondents taught: revealed that teachers overwhelmingly benefited
Teachers from Mpumalanga perceived a from the training in terms of their knowledge
statistically significant greater increase in and understanding of technology. This held true
knowledge and understanding perception for the overall perception of improved technolo-
level than teachers from Gauteng. gy knowledge and understanding competency
once ACE-Technology training had been com-
vi.Previous experience in technology pleted, as well as for the 14 specific aspects of
teaching:The respondents who had not technology knowledge and understanding
Table 4
Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analyses of variance on pre- post-score differences to determine
the significance of the role of other biographical factors on teachers’perception of improved technology
teaching competencies in addition to the established effect of ACE-Technology program intervention on
teaching competencies
Previous technology training
Kruskal-Wallis Chi-sq statistic = -13.3835, probability(chi-sq statistic-value) < 0.0001***
NObs Mean Std Dev Maximum Minimum N
Yes 1750 0.9487 0.9239 3.0000 -1.0000 1656
No 2492 1.3610 1.0090 4.0000 -3.0000 2377
Type of previous technology training exposure
Kruskal-Wallis Chi-sq statistic = 93.40, probability(chi-sq statistic-value) = 0.0001***
Workshop training 1470 1.0651 0.9206 3.0000 -1.0000 1397
Tech education qualifications 308 0.5776 0.8838 3.0000 -1.0000 277
Other training exposure 84 1.5256 0.9359 3.0000 0.0000 78
Type of technology qualification obtained
Kruskal-Wallis Chi-sq statistic = 22.76, probability(chi-sq statistic-value) < 0.0001***
Attendance certificate 700 0.9451 0.9745 3.0000 -1.0000 656
Diploma 392 0.7521 0.8203 3.0000 -1.0000 359
1st Degree 84 0.7470 1.2282 3.0000 -1.0000 83
Hons/MEd/DEd 28 0.2857 0.6587 2.0000 -1.0000 28
Institute where the previous qualification was obtained
Kruskal-Wallis Chi-sq statistic = 44.59, probability(chi-sq statistic-value) < 0.0001***
Secondary school 182 0.9670 0.9337 3.0000 -1.0000 182
Technikon/College 238 0.8316 0.7627 2.0000 -1.0000 196
University 434 0.8099 1.0193 3.0000 -1.0000 426
In-job training 308 1.0976 0.9739 3.0000 -1.0000 287
Private institution 56 0.3061 0.6832 3.0000 -1.0000 49
Province where respondent taught
Kruskal-Wallis Chi-sq statistic = 106.70, probability(chi-sq statistic-value) < 0.0001***
Province
Gauteng 2464 1.0498 0.9916 4.0000 -3.0000 2330
Mpumalanga 1750 1.3743 0.9589 3.0000 -1.0000 1691
Previous teaching experience in technology
Kruskal-Wallis Chi-sq statistic = 81.78, probability(chi-sq statistic-value) < 0.0001***
Yes 2240 1.0669 0.9397 3.0000 -1.0000 2124
No 1946 1.3479 1.0406 4.0000 -3.0000 1854
probed in the research. The initial indications of teachers with an Honors or second degree
improved competency indicated in the qualification prior to ACE-Technology training.
31
exploratory frequency analyses were neatly sta- Teachers with an Honors degree were most
tistically confirmed in the advanced statistical probably more knowledgeable at the onset of Th
e
analysis. ACE-Technology training. Deduction (vi) of J
o
the analysis results and deductionssection also ur
n
Other contributing factors, expressed as indicated that teachers who had not previously al
o
biographical attributes of teachers, presented taught technology perceived to have benefited f
T
some noteworthy perspectives on the findings. significantly more from the ACE-Technology ec
h
Teachers who had had no previous exposure to training than did those who had taught technolo- no
technology education training perceived that gy previously. The latter group most probably log
y
they benefited more from the ACE-Technology had ample exposure to technology prior to ACE- S
t
u
program than did their peers, who had previous Technology training, and they could therefore die
exposure to technology training (confirmed in identify with what the ACE-Technology training s
deduction (i) of the analysis results and inter- covered. These findings confirm that the benefit
pretationsection). This finding may be related that these categories of teachers derived from
to these teachers’heightened determination to the training based on their biographical attrib-
learn more from the training to fill their technol- utes is in keeping with DoE’s (2006) intention
ogy knowledge training gap. These findings with ACE programs – for teachers to become
serve to strengthen the opinion of research by specialists in their subject areas.
the DoE (2006), Taylor and Vinjevold (1999),
Jansen and Christie (1999) and Aluko(2009), Recommendations
who concluded that the training of many Technology teacher training should be pre-
teachers (underqualified and unqualified) is ceded by profiling teachers and analyzing needs
still incomplete. Furthermore, results indicated so that strategic decisions can be made to vary
that (deduction (ii), in the analysis results and the depth and nature of the training based on the
interpretationsection) teachers who had profile and specific needs; otherwise, the train-
received previous technology training at colleges ing maynot be beneficial to all. Teachers with-
perceived that they benefited less from the out anytraining background in technology
ACE-Technology training than did those who should preferably receive intensive training in all
had previous technology training exposure content knowledge and pedagogical areas. For
through workshops. The longer institutionally those with some training background, only spe-
based technology training for the college teach- cific gaps as identified in their needs survey
ers might provide the reason why these teachers should be addressed in the training.
perceived to have benefited less from the ACE- Furthermore, because a quantitative research
Technology training program: they most proba- approach (as was followed in the current
bly gained more knowledge and understanding research) might have presented as a limiting fac-
of technology during their college training. An tor in knowledge acquisition on the dynamics of
interesting finding that was not expected in the perceived benefits to be gained from ACE-
research (deduction (v), in the analysis results Technology training, researchers should consider
and interpretationsection), is that the mixed-methods approaches for the assessment
Mpumalangarespondents experienced a signifi- of the impact of training on technology teachers
cantlygreater positive change in technological in future studies. Such an approach will enable
knowledge post-ACE-Technology training com- triangulazation. The current exploratory study
pared with that of their Gauteng Province col- was also restricted to only two provinces in
leagues. This may be attributed to their higher South Africa. In the future, a study of this nature
level of commitment to acquire technology should be extended to other provinces to be able
teaching capabilities because of the “the rural to generalize to South Africa as a whole.
environment” where they work and the assump-
Conclusion.
tion that their rural setting is “technologically
This paper reported the findings of the
poor.” Deduction (iii) in the analysis results and
study that inquired into the effect of ACE-
interpretationsection furthermore indicated that
Technology training of teachers regarding their
teachers who had attendance certificates in
knowledge and understanding of technology.In
technology perceived their acquired technology
terms of the research question and the hypothe-
competency to have improved significantly
sis that was stated,the main finding of the study
more on ACE-Technology completion than did
is that the ACE training in technology education Dr Mishack Gumbo is a senior lecturer in
enhanced teachers’knowledge and understand- the Science and Technology Education
32
ing of technology. This is an important finding Department, College of Education at the
es considering that technology education is a rela- University of South Africa.
di
u tively new learning area/subject and that there is
t
y S dire need for training teachers to offer the same Dr. Moses Makgato is an associate profes-
g
o to learners. Furthermore, the training of teachers sor in the Department of Educational Studies at
ol
hn in the field should be seen to make a difference Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa.
c
Te in their knowledge of technology and the
of methodologies of presenting it to the learners. It Heléne Müller is a senior research support
al consultant in the Department of
n is hoped that teachers who underwent this train-
ur Interdisciplinary Research, College of Graduate
o ing are now serving their learners in schools by
J
e implementing what they have acquired. Studies at the University of South Africa.
h
T
References
Aluko, R. F. (2009). The impact of an Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) Program on the
professional practice of graduates. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
learning, 10(4), 1-15.
Borko, H., Elliot, R. L., McIver, M. C., & Wolf, S. A. (2000). “That dog won’t hunt”: Exemplary\
school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 349-393.
Brown, C., Sithole, V., & Hofmeyr, R. (2000). South Africa: Teacher training in the sky.
TechKnowlogia, 53-54.
Castellano, M., & Datnow, A. (2000). Teachers’responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences,
and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (3), 775-799.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1), 1-49.
Department of Education. [DoE]. (2000). Norms and Standards for Educators. Pretoria: Government
Printers.
Department of Education. [DoE]. (2003). Revised National Curriculum. Pretoria: Government
Printers.
Department of Education. [DoE]. (2005). Revised National Curriculum. Pretoria: Government
Printers.
Department of Education. [DoE]. (2006). The national policy framework for teacher education and
development in South Africa: More teachers; better teachers. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Department of Education. [DoE]. (2009). Teacher Qualification Survey: Draft report prepared by
Human Sciences Research Council for Department of Education.
Department of Education. [DoE]. (2010). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (draft
document). Pretoria: Government Printers.
Feng ,W., & Siu, K. W. M. (2009). Professional development for technology teachers in Mainland
China and Hong Kong: Bridging theory and practice. A paper presented at the PATT22
conference held between 24-28 in Delfti.
Gumbo, M. T. (2003). Indigenous technologies: Implications for a technology education curriculum.
(Unpublished PhD thesis). Pretoria: Vista University.
Jansen, J., & Christie, P. (Eds). (1999). Changing curriculum studies on OBE in South Africa.
Pretoria: Juta & Co Ltd.
